I'll concede that this scenario is not out of the realm of of judicial possibility. However, and I may be coming in here late (this thread has grown by over 200 posts since I went to bed last night here in Yokohama) and this point may already have been been gnawed over since I last weighed in, but just as food for thought:
If the founder's intention by inserting the NBC language in A2S1C5 of the Constitution was to minimize to the greatest extent possible the potential for divided loyalties in a person elected to wield the presidential levers of power, then simple logic would seem to dictate that a person with one foreign born parent, regardless of the legal parentage status of that alien progenitor, would have at least a theoretically higher chance of having sympathies with the foreign nation of the alien parent's origin than a child born to parents who are both citizens.
Those here posting about Wong Kim Ark should really really really read the brief by the Appellant - which was the United States.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23965360/Wong-Kim-Ark-US-v-169-US-649-1898-Appellants-Brief-USA
It talks about natural born citizen.
While reading it keep in mind that the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts decision without exception.
after reading it some of you may understand why I bring up Chester Arthur and his relationship with Horace Gray.
This is a good point. There’s really nothing to support the idea that the child of a single U.S. citizen mother would be a natural-born citizen in the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, especially the child of a British subject, whether he was a bigamist or not. There’s nothing to indicate that they would have only rejected those persons who were legitimately born to foreign national fathers.
The thing that we need to focus on too, is that this hearing is an administrative law hearing for an elections law issue. Marriage and legitimacy cases are conducted separately and can take all kinds of time to sort out and resolve. This judge is not going to accept weak and speculative claims about Obama’s mama being an unwed mother because Obama’s papa was a bigamist. It just ain’t gonna happen. Instead, I predict that either A) Obama tries to strong-arm the court with a fake birth certificate or out-of-court website evidence, B) Obama bails out and allows a default judgment, or C) His lawyers find a way to delay the case and/or get an injunction and convince a higher court to dismiss the case.
My point exactly. In order for the Article to have any meaning, it must accomplish the task of minimizing foreign influence in the Executive. Any interpretation which does not accomplish this purpose must be a WRONG interpretation.